Tuesday, May 31, 2016

We
know that 3D printing will disrupt manufacturing and the international
supply chain, but nobody seems to know how yet. Now a paper from the
Business School at Lingman Normal University in Zhanjiang has tried to
separate the wood from the trees.

The general consensus is that 3D printing is going to have a profound
effect. The concept of mass producing goods half way around the world
and then shipping them is inherently inefficient. UPS clearly agrees,
as it is investing heavily in 3D printing centers throughout the US
that can produce goods on demand for local delivery.

So even the big players are panicking, but what will actually happen?
There are theories that much of the labor market could actually be
wiped out and logistics will become a casualty of the digital era. This
doesn’t take into account our natural capacity to adapt, though, and
the fact that we have been here before.

This isn’t the first rodeo

When Asia effectively took over mass production, Europe and the US
concentrated on complex products. These goods were often assembled with
parts taken from the factories that sprang up in China. Those that
didn’t adapt, simply died. The ones that did were often more successful
than ever.

Now we face a new industrial revolution that brings its own unique
problems. We know that there will be upheaval, but still nobody quite
knows how this will pan out.

The
concept of mass producing goods half way around the world and then
shipping them is inherently inefficient. UPS clearly agrees, as it is
investing heavily in 3D printing centers throughout the US that can
produce goods on demand for local delivery.

We really don’t know if 3D printing will take over mass manufacturing,
or if the benefits of the old system will keep it in the game for a
long time to come.

Does 3D printing have a limit?

Printing speed, cost and the quality of the finished product are all
improving at a rate that suggests this is the future. But we may yet
find a cut-off point where it is simply not cost-effective to use the
printers for a certain product.

Well the Chinese researchers have attempted to analyse the situation
using system dynamics to offer a rational answer.

It posed a number of possibilities and came to the inevitable
conclusion: 3D printing is set to change the manufacturing world and
the supply chain. [Continue
...]

Let
me tell you why this is wrong. I've been to 3-D movies. I have a
3-D
capable television. As a kid I even had 3-D comic books. After
watching/reading for just a few minutes my eyes get blurry, and I get a
headache, and I am not alone. Twenty-minutes onto "HOUSE OF WAX," fully half the audience left the Montclare Theater in some level of distress. So this 3-D printer stuff, while techno exotic, is
doomed
to go the way of other gadgets that flopped big time. Don't invest.

For a start, Trump is if anything philo-semitic rathrer than
antisemitic. That's not strictly relevant as Mussolini was not
antisemitic either -- until Hitler pushed him into it. But in the
popular mind Fascism and antisemitism are strongly associated.
When
Donald opened his club in Palm Beach called Mar-a-Lago, he insisted on
accepting Jews and blacks even though other clubs in Palm Beach to this
day discriminate against blacks and Jews. And his recent speech
at
AIPAC was warmly pro-Israel.

But picking at little bits that Trump has said here and there miss the
main game entirely. Fascism was LEFTIST and Trump sure is not
that.
There has NEVER been a Fascist type regime emanating from
conservatives. Some past conservative regimes have in fact been
remarkably libertarian -- the 19th century's Lord Salisbury, for
instance

And the various Latin American dictators of C20 were Bolivarists, not
conservatives. And Bolivar had little time for democracy. The
keenest
modern-day Bolivarists rule Venezuela. Enough said about that, I think.

You would have to go back to Oliver Cromwell to find a dictator with
any sort of conservative identity and Cromwell was not much of a
dictator. He was invited to his role by his fellow Puritan
leaders,
who saw the need for strong leadership in turbulent times. Cromwell was
certainly hard on his Irish opponents but they largely brought that
down on their own heads. There was no Geneva convention at that
time.

Leftists moan about Pinochet but he rose to power in response to a
desperate plea from the Chilean parliament after a Marxist president
had burnt the electoral rolls. That Pinochet subsequently
used
Leftist methods to round up Leftist opponents of his rule was simply a
case of him giving the Left a long overdue taste of their own vicious
medicine. And Pinochet was not in fact conservative. He was
originally appointed to the army leadership precisely because he was
seen as non-political. He was just a General doing a job to which
he
had been invited. And he retired from that job voluntarily.

Outside of Africa, ALL the vicious regimes of C20 were Leftist --
whether Communists or Fascists. So the fact that Trump is
not a
Leftist GUARANTEES that he is not a Fascist [John
J. Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.]

Rush past appearance on Fox News Sunday, confronts that weasel Mitt Romney and GOP
pals,
and, well, kicks the their collective asses. Two months later it still resonates. I will be srsly
interested in your
dissenting opinion.